A simple proof that DNA ancestry has provided modern science has dispelled the notion that the people in the Americas were descended from Israelites. But no one that believes would ever be swayed by modern science. Of course the Book of Mormon changed in 2007 to go along with this evidence. But once again… it just proves it was ‘translated incorrectly’
Hey, do whatever you want, but no crocodile tears when you don’t get any sympathy for your position.
I had a very enlightening discussion at lunch with a Catholic. I enjoy having discussions with people who look at the same set of facts and come to a different conclusion.
But if you are going to mock the Mormons, be aware that they are mocking you back.
And where I sit, there is no difference between what you are saying and someone protesting the the Wizard of Oz couldn’t be real because everyone knows that you have to tap your feet together four times, not three.
As far as your sympathy for being an atheist, don’t worry. As the famous line goes, the only difference between you and I is that I only believe in one less god than you.
Well, wife, not sex slave. But yes, she was 14 years old, and yes, Joseph pressured her father into it.
The nice thing about the articles linked is that it should dispel any doubts that Mormonism was the equivalent of a cult at the time.
This is just pure gold. JS wants an adolescent so badly he creates a new doctrine, that of tying families together in the Celestial kingdom. Apparently, it set off a gold rush of early leaders getting sealed together.
Of course, this was quietly discontinued, so that somber sacrament meetings could rule, but still, one wishes that the wild days of the early church could have continued for just a little longer.
My guess is that the LDS Church will resemble present-day Methodism…no more bogus “history”, no “golden plates”, etc.
It will resemble most mainstream protestant sects.
Great link. I’d forgotten all about wivesofjosephsmith.org. It doesn’t say much about whether Mormonism today is a cult, but it gives the impression that it was a pretty nasty cult in the 1800s.
Wife, sex slave, potato, po-tah-to. “Wife” was the word that Joseph Smith and Helen’s father used. But Joseph already had a wife, whom he lived with and supported financially. Helen continued living with her parents. Not much of a wife. Maybe “mistress” would be a better word, except when I think of that word it doesn’t bring up images of a father trading his daughter’s chastity for his family’s exaltation, or the married client coercing his mistresses with stories of heaven, hell, and destroying angels. I guess “concubine” is a close match - reluctant concubine who doesn’t become part of the houshold. What else do you call a child who gets pimped by her father?
Well, they’ve certainly gone beyond the celestial marriage, 14-year-old sex slave thing.
I read once an article, which I believe was written by one of the apologists, I want to say someone in FAIR, on where the Church would want to circle its wagons. If you think about it, they are already chucking a number of enormous doctrine and traditions out the door. It may not be as obvious to someone who is a member and watching it go slowly, but for someone like me who was completely isolated from the mid 80s until after 2000 when I started reading things on the Net, it was almost like they were two different religions.
In the 60s and 70s, we were a *particular *people, and proud of it, dammit. The world was wrong, we were right, we would die and go to the great Org Chart in the Sky. The Catholics were evil, the Protestants mislead, and there was only one true Church, so we didn’t want to be mainstream.
[del]In the article, now lost forever due to forgetting whatever the hell terms I used to search for, one of the first things to go would be the Book of Abraham.[/del]
Hold the presses. I found the article.
For people not familiar with FAIR (now the Neil Maxwell Institute), it’s a Mormon Church funded think tank of apologists, whose primary purpose seems to be to acknowledge some of the gaping holes in the official stories and find the best way to spin it. They are allowed to say things which The Brethren" the top leadership would never be allowed, because the apologists are “speaking for themselves.” The church uses this to get out of things such as the traditional belief that American Indians were descendants of the Lamanites and thus from ancient Israel.
Anywhooo. From the article:
This is rather brilliant. Naturally, there is the spin that the argument against the Book of Abraham is “so complex” is great. It’s not complex. It’s simple. It’s a fraud, and easily demonstrated.
While spinning is cool, what is brilliant is the suggestion to jettison damn near everything which Mormonism used to be. Note the six suggestions. Only one thing has anything to do with it. Gree is specifically talking about something which is clearly an embarrassment for the Church, but note that he’s allowing for even Joseph Smith to get thrown under the bus at some time in the future. Also note the phrasing, that “God talked and still talks with men through the power of the Holy Ghost.” There are active Mormons on this board who are acknowledging that Joseph Smith “could have” got one of the core tenets wrong.
I don’t think it will take 100 or even 50 years. The availability of information via the internet is forcing a housecleaning, and it’s obvious the direction which has been chosen.
A Mormon?
It sounds like he’s saying to downplay and evade. Did that not use to be standard?
My intention is not to MOCK Mormons. The OP asked for the difference between Mormons and “mainstream religions.”
To me, mainstream religions would be Catholic and Protestant. Since Mormons claim to be Christian, I was focusing on the non-Christian POV of the LDS Church.
I don’t consider atheism a religion.
So if your stand is that ANY belief in God is a fantasy, I don’t think you can weigh the difference between Mormonism and mainstream religion.
I get peeved when an atheist comes to the party and says, essentially, “Who cares, since all religion is a big fairy tale?” To me, it obliterates the OP’s question.
The way I see it, you are using it as an opportunity to mock Christianity.
~VOW
More to the point, we aren’t really answering LouisB’s question. The real question that he wants to know the answer to is given in post #14. He notes that there are a great deal of Christian churches who believe that Mormonism is clearly heretical. And that’s true. It’s not a question of whether Mormonism is really heretical. It’s not a question of whether the concept of heresy makes any sense. It’s not a qustion of whether Christianity makes any sense. It’s not a question of whether any religion whatsoever makes any sense. That’s not the point that he’s making. What’s clearly true is that there are a great deal of Christian churches that believe that Mormonism is heretical. (I’m going to use the term “heretical” because it’s closer to what’s being asked here than describing Mormonism as a cult. It’s not about how the Mormon church controls its members socially. It’s about their theology.)
Given that belief by many churches that Mormonism is heretical, what LouisB wants to know is what those churches will say about Romney and Mormonism in discussing the election. My suspicion is that they will do their best to completely ignore the fact that he is a Mormon. These churches in effect have an unspoken agreement with other groups in the Republican Party. They agree to not publicly talk about how heretical they believe Mormonism to be. The business/military/libertarian wings of the party agree to pretend to be good Christians. The Mormons agree to not discuss how much their theology differs from mainstream Christianity.
Then you’re not doing a very good job of hiding it. Let’s look at your first quote in this thread:
MOCK, belittle, whatever; it apparently requires CAPITALIZATION to convey how silly the Mormons are for believing their beliefs. If capitalization fails to get the point across, there are also bold and red. Sort of like shouting at foreigners is they don’t understand English.
Numerous posters have asked for clarification, but it doesn’t look like you’ve got anything besides tribalism. They’re wrong because you’re right.
Along with many of the posters in this thread, I’m an ex-Mormon. We can comment as we wish.
::Shrug:: You fail to see or are ignoring the point I’ve made. YOU came in with ALL CAPITALIZATIONS and you oh-so-funny, mocking sister. Let’s all laugh at the Mormons because they don’t believe in your interpretation of what is passed off as the the word of God. Apparently, the irony hasn’t hit you.
No, just you. And anyone else who cherry-picks ambiguous sentences written a thousands of years ago, and arbitrarily assigns a meaning of the moment to mock others.
I think so. Once Rick lost, there weren’t any alternatives, anyone is better than Obama for them.